God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Non-English Speaking Truckers, NPR Anonymous Sources, 200 Trade Deals, MSM Political Polls Trust, Reddit AI Bot Influence, Nellie Ohr, Katherine Austin Fitts, Secret Underground Cities, Pelosi Bill, Shri Thanedar, Pride Recognition, First 100 Days, Princeton Hiring Racism, Governor Pritzker, Hate Speech, Kamala Harris Pay to View, Chuck Schumer's Projection, China 10 Year Bond, President Trump, The Atlantic, Pete Hegseth, Colin Carroll, Estimated 1200 Migrant Terrorists, Educational Basics Failure, Pacific Palisades Fire Recovery, Welfare Fraud Decriminalization, California Policies, Additional Biden Boxes, Biden Decline Media Surprise, Jim Clyburn, Biden's Brain Coverup, Aircraft Carrier Loses Hornet, Iran Drone Factory Explosion, Ukraine Cease Fire, North Korean Ukraine Fighters, Houthi Missile Launches, Take It Down Act, Climate Assessment Contributors Fired, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
I feel you've been good, and so you deserve a podcast.
Yeah.
It's going to be great.
do do do do do do do do do do do do do Ta-do!
noises*
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams because that's what it is.
But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or shells, a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
go so
Sensational.
So, so good.
Well, there was some kind of an election in Canada, and I don't really care.
Does anybody care?
Let's take a vote in the comments.
Does anybody care about the election in Canada?
No?
Okay, moving on.
Apparently, Amazon has decided to show the tariff costs in your cart before you pay for it.
But as Sean Davis pointed out on X, Why don't they tell us what country it's being made from?
Would you like to know that?
Would you love to know what's being made in China?
Yes, you would.
So, it might be nice to know what the tariffs are adding to the cost, but on the other hand, it would also be really nice to know what country is this coming from.
That would be fun.
Speaking of Jeff Bezos, I guess Amazon is going to launch its Project Kuiper satellites, according to USA Today.
So they're going to launch, what, 27 satellites into low-Earth orbit.
What is it for?
That's missing in the story.
What are they going to use all those satellites for?
I assume they're going to...
Compete for internet traffic with SpaceX's satellites.
They're going to deploy over 3,200 satellites eventually.
Is the entire Earth going to be surrounded with satellites at one point?
Are we going to dim the sun with so many satellites?
At some point.
Drone delivery?
You think it's about drone delivery?
Maybe.
Yeah, maybe.
Could be.
Speaking of shopping, the ChatGPT OpenAI is going to add shopping to its AI app.
So if you're in ChatGPT, this is a story in Wired.
You'll be able to search for things, and it will pop up with recommendations.
And it will learn to know your preferences.
And so, yeah, you could be competing with Starlink.
We don't know.
It might be more than that.
But would you shop with AI?
Because I've tried to shop with AI, and it's actually pretty good because it gives you links to the actual vendor.
You know, it's not acting like Amazon.
It would give you links to Amazon and other vendors.
I kind of like that.
So I don't know how they're going to make their money.
So they're not going to have sponsored ads, or at least they don't yet.
But don't you think it would be better to shop with an AI than to even go to Amazon?
Although I gotta say, Amazon.com, the actual software, is probably the best software I've ever seen.
Have you ever stopped to think how incredible it is that Amazon.com works?
And it works really well.
And it's...
It's optimized and it's easy to navigate.
I'm always wowed by how good Amazon is with software.
Anyway, apparently IBM is going to invest $150 billion in the U.S. to grow its manufacturing over five years.
So add that to the Trump tariff wins.
Apparently, we've got quite a few companies now that are going to move their manufacturing to the U.S. So that part of what Trump is trying to do seems to be working, at least at some scale.
Speaking of Trump, he just signed an executive order to require truck drivers to speak English.
Now, I didn't know that was a big problem, that truck drivers didn't speak English, a lot of them.
But apparently it is.
And it's not just a small problem.
Apparently that inability to speak English has led to a number of accidents.
I don't know if it's because they can't read street signs or what it is.
But there is some thinking that there is massive danger that the truck drivers can't speak English.
So maybe that got fixed.
Although now there won't be enough truck drivers.
So that's a problem.
Here's some fake news.
Let's do the fake news.
According to NPR, two anonymous sources.
Now, if I tell you it's NPR and it's two anonymous sources and the story is something that's negative about the Trump administration, is it real?
What's your guess?
Is your guess that NPR, with two anonymous sources and a negative story about the Trump administration, is there any chance that's real?
Well, it looks like it's not.
So the claim was that some doge workers got access to nuclear secrets, which apparently the authorities have said, no, that's crazy.
Nobody got access to any nuclear secrets.
Of course not.
Here's some more fake news.
Trump is claiming he's already made 200 trade deals, but he won't specify.
He won't give any examples, so you can't check on him.
Does anybody think that Trump already made 200 trade deals?
Does anybody think that's even a little bit true?
Some of the claims that Trump is making are just hilarious.
I saw Scott Bassent was in an interview and he was asked about that.
He was asked, what about these 200 trade deals?
And Bassent had to sort of talk around it because he couldn't confirm it because it's obviously not true.
But he didn't want to go against his boss.
So he just sort of weasel worded it.
And we've talked around it.
Now, it might be, it could be true, that a whole bunch of different countries have decided on some kind of framework or maybe decided on some small part of a deal.
And, you know, Trump's calling those trade deals, even though they're not comprehensive for each country.
So maybe he's talking about that, but it just looks like a made-up number to me.
I saw a poll by Rasmussen.
It's a poll on whether people trust polls.
Apparently a majority, 51%, either have not very much trust or no trust at all in major media polls.
How many of you trust major media polls, especially about politics?
Do you think they're real?
I had a conversation with one of my pollster friends.
You know, he's been working in that industry forever.
And, you know, when I said, yeah, everybody knows the major polls are fake.
Oh, my goodness, did he not agree with that?
No, no, no.
But then I specified, no, I'm talking about the political stuff.
The political stuff is obviously fake.
And he says, no, I am completely wrong about that.
The political polls are very reliable.
But here's a quote that I think is hilarious.
This is in Rasmussen's reporting on this.
So after Trump won the 2024 election, there was a Harris senior campaign advisor, this guy David Plouffe, who admitted he was, quote, surprised.
That many public polls last year showed that Harris was ahead of Trump because the Harris campaign's own internal polling never had her leading.
Have you seen the list of major media polls that said that Harris was ahead?
They were all fake.
They must have been.
Because their internal polling never showed it.
And I don't think Trump's internal polling ever showed it.
And I don't think Rasmussen ever showed it.
But all the rest of them, like, oh, yeah.
Yeah, she's up by two points.
No problem.
She's totally going to win.
None of that was ever true.
So if the only thing you knew was that the central advisor to Harris didn't believe the polls because their own poll that they paid for was not agreeing with them, that's all you need to know to know that they were fake.
48% of voters believe that the problem with the polls is that some pollsters were deliberately adjusting their numbers to support Harris, while 35% think it was because they don't know how to accurately poll.
Do you think the problem is they don't know how to accurately poll?
No, that's not the problem.
I'm pretty sure they do know how to accurately poll.
Because the internal pollster knew how.
Do you think only the internal polls know how to poll?
And all the external public ones don't?
No.
They all know how to poll.
So whatever you see that looks crooked, it's probably intentional.
So here's a scary story.
Apparently, the University of Zurich had been running a secret project with AI bots.
On Reddit.
And they were trying to see if they could secretly manipulate Redditors' opinions.
They've been running it since November 2024.
I saw this on the Reddit Lies account.
Apparently it worked.
So the bots, which would be just AI characters that are not real, that pretend to be real.
It said the bots were six times more likely to change the minds of redditors than the baseline, often by leveraging misinformation.
So all the bots did is lie, and they were really successful at changing people's minds.
They just lied.
Then people thought, oh, okay, well, they changed their minds.
But apparently they all had personas, but they used information about their targets.
For persuasion.
So they would know kind of what would work for each person.
They would figure that out.
And then they would change their minds.
Now, if you can change people's minds with an AI bot, do those people have free will?
Because the thing that changed their mind was not their minds.
The thing that changed their mind was the AI.
So what was it that caused them to have the opinions they had?
Was it their free will?
Or was it the AI?
It's obviously the AI.
What causes anybody to have the views that they have?
Pretty much the news that they've seen and the information they've absorbed.
So for the most part, we're very close to proving that free will is an illusion.
But I know every one of you hates when I say that.
But I will be right.
Eventually.
Do you remember Crossfire Hurricane?
That was the project the FBI was running.
That was the fake Russia collusion hoax.
And there was a central character in that named Nellie Orr.
O-H-R.
And she worked for Fusion GPS and...
She coordinated with her husband.
She was a Justice Department official.
And she and he were really close to the origin of the crossfire hurricane, Russia collusion hoax.
But apparently, according to Chuck Grassley, the FBI keeps hiding her involvement by overclassifying stuff.
So Grassley's mad at the FBI.
He says, stop.
Stop overclassifying so we can find out what Nellie Orr was up to.
I've got a feeling that if we found out what she was up to, it wouldn't look good.
But that's just a hunch.
Well, I saw that Tucker Carlson had a guest who claimed that $21 trillion is missing from government budgets over the years.
And at least part of it, her name is Catherine...
Austin Fitz.
She claims that some amount of that money is going to building massive underground cities in the United States and also under the oceans.
And that these massive underground cities exist all over the United States and they're connected by underground pathways.
And I suppose you could also get to the underground.
You know, below the ocean ones.
And...
Okay, this is too dumb.
That's the claim.
How many of you believe that there are...
She thought there were 170.
That was her best estimate.
Just an estimate, though.
How many believe that the government used part of $21 trillion to build massive underground cities?
And she speculates it's because of potential extinction events.
So there might be various things that would cause extinction, and they're building a whole civilization basically underground.
I'm going to say no.
I'm going to say nope.
I don't believe any part of that.
I do believe that there might be underground facilities.
You know, in various places.
So it's not like there's no underground facilities.
But 170 of them, all connected, no.
No.
Don't believe it.
Well, there's a new bill in Congress, hasn't been passed, but it's been introduced, that would prevent members of Congress from doing insider trading, which they can do legally, but nobody else can.
But the funny part is that the bill is called the Pelosi Bill.
It stands for Preventing Elected Leaders Owning Securities Investments.
They had to try pretty hard to make that sound like Pelosi, but that's pretty funny.
However, it guarantees that they'll never get any Democrat to vote for it, because there's no Democrat that can vote for making Pelosi illegal.
So I don't think it's going to pass, even with Republicans in charge.
I don't think it's going to make it.
We'll see.
So there's a congressman named Sri Thanedar, who is pushing for some impeachment of Trump.
Now, you have to see the video of this guy.
Because I don't think it's my imagination that the weirdest members of Congress are always the ones pushing impeachment.
I think you'll always find somebody who's just so weird.
And this guy is like a little extra, a little extra weird.
So you can take a look yourself, but whenever you see a Democrat has introduced articles of impeachment, that's not going to be a regular guy.
That's going to be somebody weird looking.
According to the Wall Street Journal, 39% of executives in a recent survey said they'll decrease their recognition of Pride this year.
So I guess Pride Month is coming up in June.
And partly because of the Trump administration's anti-DEI efforts, companies are going to pull back on Pride recognition or celebration, I guess.
Now, my take on this, I think I said the same thing last year, is that gays should just take the victory.
Because I've never seen any segment of the country that has been so successful in improving their brand from being mocked or whatever it was when you were a kid to, wow,
these guys are doing great.
You know, you've never gone to a neighborhood where somebody said, oh, you better not go to that neighborhood because it's a gay neighborhood.
It's a little too dangerous.
That doesn't exist.
It's not a thing.
And you also have, you know, a lot of successful top-level politicians, both Republican and Democrat, who are openly gay.
I think take the win.
I think, you know, the LGB...
Crowd especially.
They've done the greatest job I've ever seen in improving their brand to the point where it's just irrelevant.
How many of you spend a lot of time thinking about it?
The test is you don't really even think about it.
So take the win.
At some point, the whole Pride Month thing ends up working against you.
Because it's a way to say you're different.
Whereas the win is that everybody's the same, meaning, you know, we're all different, but we're all equal.
So I just think the gay and lesbian community has won so hard that they should seriously consider whether they need a celebration.
They should just say, we won.
You know, everything turned out great.
You know, I've never heard of anybody...
When was the last time you heard of somebody not being hired because they were gay or lesbian?
I've never even heard of it.
I mean, I don't think it happens in 2025, does it?
Anyway, so take the win.
Good job.
So we're still obsessing about the first 100 days of Trump.
It is the most ridiculous story.
All it is is a way for Democrats to have something to bitch about because 100 days is not nearly enough to know if anything worked.
Now, of course, the Republicans are all saying, but what about all those great executive orders and the border got closed?
And then the Democrats will just say, yes, but what about the tariffs that are definitely not working as if they know how it's going to turn out?
Maybe 100 months would be a good time to check in, but 100 days doesn't make any sense at all as a time to check the progress of a president, unless you were smart enough to say,
all right, let's just look at the things where you can know how it turns out within 100 days.
And that's not tariffs.
It's not the economy.
It's not the price of eggs.
It's not Ukraine.
It's not Gaza.
It's none of those things.
But maybe in 100 months, you'll be able to look back and see how it turned out.
But this whole media obsession over a big round number, oh, 100 is a big round number.
We should see how everything's happening within that 100 days.
Ridiculous.
Stop it.
Well, according to Christopher Ruffo, and I guess there's a Article in the City Journal that professors at Princeton are kind of getting at each other because they're so racist that one of the departments is now explicitly telling the faculty,
quote, we can't hire a white guy.
Now, the Democrats and the people hearing this story for the first time are going to say, Are you kidding me?
In 2025, there's a respectable entity, Princeton, that's saying out loud, like they're not even hiding it, they're saying out loud, we won't hire a white guy?
Well, may I give you my expertise as a white guy?
It's never been different.
It was around the late 80s or the beginning of the 90s, When people started saying out loud, with no hedging whatsoever, we can't hire a white guy.
I mean, it destroyed two of my careers in the 90s.
It's the reason Dilbert was born, because I couldn't succeed at a bank or at the phone company, because they told me directly, directly, we can't hire a white guy.
And to act like somehow this is new, This isn't new.
This is like a 35-year problem, or 40 years, or whatever the hell it is.
The fact that people are just finding out about it tells you how bad it was, that nobody could say it out loud in any public forum.
And if you did, if you said it out loud in any public way, people would think you're lying.
They would actually accuse you of lying.
I've been accused of lying about that so many times.
Do you think I was lying when I say that I was told by my bosses directly, with no indirection whatsoever, we can't promote a white guy?
No.
They said it directly.
And it was usually white guys who told me, right?
In one case, a white woman.
But to imagine this is something new.
Wow.
Well, let's check in on J.B. Pritzker and his hate speech.
So he's got a lot to say about Republicans, but here he is once again doing the Nazi comparison.
Quote, my family emigrated to this country from Ukraine when the Russians were killing Jews during the pogroms, the governor continued.
And so what I feel anyway.
It's that the dangers that my family experienced in Ukraine, the dangers that we saw in, you know, Nazi Germany, especially in the earliest days of Nazi Germany, are the dangers that we need to react to now.
If we don't, things will get much worse.
So Pritzker is directly saying that the Trump and Trump supporters are essentially Nazis.
And if you don't react to them now...
It'll be a full-blown Hitler situation.
Now, would you consider that a hate crime?
Because a, well, a hate speech.
Because hate speech is narrowly defined as something that would incite violence, you know, somewhat immediately.
Do you think that this is technically legal because it doesn't incite specific violence specifically right away?
But it kind of does do it right away, because if you really believed that Hitler was rising, you wouldn't delay, right?
You'd start putting swastikas on Teslas, etc., which is what people are doing.
So I would say that, yeah, to me that looks like a speech, but that's just me.
I guess Kamala Harris is scheduled to give a...
Speech, which I'm sure will also be full of hate.
And she's going to do it for $25 per viewer.
I guess you're going to pay to watch the stream.
How many people would pay $25 to watch a Kamala Harris speech?
And I wonder, is that all you have to pay?
Is it just $25 per stream, or is there also a two-drink minimum?
Oh, wait.
The two-drink minimum only applies to Harris.
So she'll have at least two drinks before she does her speech that you'd have to pay $25 to say.
I can't even imagine paying $25 to hear Kamala Harris speak.
Now, it's for some group that's probably raising money for it.
I don't think it goes to her.
But really?
So I expect some hate speech to come out of that.
Chuck Schumer, he's doing the projection thing that, for some reason, Democrats never recognize, so it works.
He started out by saying recently that the Republican agenda is billionaires win, American families lose.
Does that sound like projection?
Because immediately, as soon as he said it, the X platform had pictures of him.
Posing repeatedly with Alex Soros.
It's not like the Republicans have some kind of monopoly on billionaires.
I mean, how long have we been talking about billionaires distorting our system by their contributions primarily to Democrat things?
So that's projection number one, that Republicans are the ones with the billionaires.
Completely ignoring the fact that Democrats Are almost defined by their billionaires.
Then the Western Lensman account on X points out that in 2025, Chuck Schumer is saying that Trump wants to intimidate and threaten judges.
This is Chuck Schumer saying that Trump is trying to intimidate and threaten judges.
Does that sound familiar?
It should, because in 2020, Chuck Schumer was threatening and intimidating the Supreme Court, telling them that they would inherit the whirlwind or something.
So that was projection.
So he's like the OG of threatening the courts, and now he's saying that that's a Republican thing.
And then he was asked if he's going to retire.
And he says he's not going to retire because, quote, I'm staying put because I've been able to unite my caucus in a very strong fight against Trump.
So what's missing in that frame?
He's been able to unite his caucus in a very strong fight against Trump.
There's no positive message.
Even Democrats have been telling other Democrats, Can you at least suggest something positive?
You can't run a campaign that's just anti-Trump.
But he is.
So, I think Schumer is the least effective communicator on the Democrat side.
So, Jon Stewart was right when he said, maybe Schumer is not the one you put in front of the camera.
But who do you put in front of the camera?
Bernie Sanders?
AOC, the weird little guy who's got the articles of impeachment, or Cory Booker sitting on steps.
They don't have anybody who isn't scary or weird.
They need somebody who's not scary or weird.
According to investor Kyle Bass, who follows China pretty closely, The China 10-year bond yield has just, you know, sunk through the floor.
But that doesn't make sense if it were true that China's GDP was growing at 5.4%.
So the thinking is that the bond is giving a little reveal that people don't trust that China is actually growing, or at least growing at that rate.
So, I don't know that that means that the entire economy is going to, you know, implode in China.
But it does suggest that whatever China is telling you about their economy might be totally fake.
And maybe always has been.
I don't know.
So, I asked Grok and said that these low yields would be unusual for an economy that's supposedly growing in a robust way.
So...
Very unusual.
So China's probably lying about their economy, but we don't know to what degree.
Well, as you know, Trump did an interview with The Atlantic, which is probably the most anti-Trump publication in the world.
They don't hide it at all.
And that's where Jeffrey Goldberg works, etc.
And there's a quote that comes out of it about P. Hegseth.
So allegedly, Trump said, quote, I think he's going to get it together.
I had a talk with him, a positive talk, but I had a talk with him.
Now, let me ask you this.
If you knew that the Atlantic is the most anti-Trump entity, and you knew that Democrats are attacking Hegseth in particular because they think You know, that there's a weakness there and they can get rid of him?
Do you think that Trump actually said this, or would you have to hear it on audio or video with the full context to know that he said this?
And here's the big risk about doing an interview with something like The Atlantic.
If they don't show you the whole context and the specific wording and what he was talking about, It makes it look like Trump has lost confidence in Hegseth and doesn't think that he has it together.
Now, that might be true, but you've noticed that Trump has never said anything like that anywhere else.
So, I didn't research it, but could you tell me, is there any video or audio of Trump saying, I think he's going to get it together?
Because I'll bet there isn't.
So that's just my speculation.
If there is, and the video or audio shows the full context, well, then I'm wrong.
But I wouldn't trust The Atlantic to have a quote that was both accurate and in context.
This is a little bit too on the nose.
Like it would be the most damaging thing you could put in an article.
If you were Hank Seth and you read this, you'd be going, oh shit, I'm going to get fired.
I think he's going to get it together.
That's what you say about somebody who's not going to be around very long.
And I don't know that he actually said that.
Anyway.
Megan Kelly had a fellow on her show who was recently fired.
For, I think, suspicion of leaking, but he said he didn't do it.
So his name is Colin Carroll.
And when he was asked about P.A. Exeth, he said on one sense that he was super focused and he was like great in a meeting that he saw.
But in other times he said, at the same time, I've seen the secretary in more internal meetings where he is super focused on like Very, in my opinion, weird details and very agitated and kind of yelling and just nothing's good.
In other words, acting like nothing's good.
Now, how seriously should you take that?
So it's on Megyn Kelly's show.
She's very, very credible.
But he's a recently fired guy.
If I could give you any advice about who to believe, don't believe anonymous sources and don't believe recently fired guys.
Because almost every boss in the world could be described as somebody who was focusing on weird details and got very agitated and was yelling at stuff.
That's almost everybody.
Or at least everybody at a high level of management.
So, you know, I would put that in the not too credible.
I'm not saying he's wrong.
But I'm saying that just in general, you shouldn't trust somebody who recently got fired by the person they're talking about.
That's a good general rule.
Well, according to current estimates, There are 1,200 alleged terrorists in the United States, if you count the gang members.
There are about 400 of them who are ISIS-related or come from countries where ISIS has a little too much control.
So they're sketchy.
But the rest are MS-13 and Trenda, Aragua, whatever the Venezuelan gang is.
1,200 of them.
And these were all let in during the Biden administration.
So good job, Biden.
It really makes you wonder, was Biden even working for the United States?
I mean, a lot of stuff he did, it looked more like he was working to destroy the country, you know, just in terms of outcome.
So it's hard to even understand that we got to this place, but at least Trump's solving it.
I saw a video from, it looked like it was tagged on something called Von Koran.
I guess that's whoever got the video.
And there was this American substitute teacher who was describing his first day as a substitute teacher.
And he was talking about the quality of the students and what they knew.
And he said, quote, I thought y 'all was lying to me when y 'all said that these kids didn't know nothing.
These kids don't know shit, like nothing, nada.
They don't know basic math, addition, subtraction, division, fractions, multiplication.
So, let me ask you this.
Is that more dangerous than the 1,200 terrorists?
It is.
If we're raising an entire generation of kids who can't read and do basic math, Ultimately, that's more dangerous for the country than even the 1,200 terrorists.
So we've got a really big problem, and I don't know how we got there except for the teachers' unions.
I blame the teachers' unions, basically.
And maybe the solution is more choice in schools, and at least things are moving in that direction.
And then their substitute teacher uses language like, these kids didn't know nothing.
I'm pretty sure that what he meant is they don't know anything.
So he's not their English teacher, apparently.
It sounds like he's the math teacher.
I wouldn't let the math teacher teach them English.
So maybe there's two problems there, the teachers and the kids.
Newt Gingrich is giving us an update on the LA Palisades fire.
And he says four months ago the fire happened and 6,800 homes were destroyed in the LA area.
He says three months later only four permits have been issued to rebuild the community.
Only four.
It's like California isn't even trying to be a functional state.
What the hell?
Only four permits?
Now, I heard somebody question whether his number was correct.
So maybe there's some question about the data.
But I'm pretty sure things are not going well.
And this is something where there was maximum attention.
There was maximum understanding that if we did things the way we always do them, it would be a disaster.
And that we had to cut some red tape and do things faster.
And a few things, I think, happened faster, like the cleanup.
You know, the EPA did their cleanup fast.
But I don't know.
If it's really this bad, it's almost like there's nothing that California can do right.
Well, let's see.
What else California is doing?
Oh, yeah.
Some California Democrats want to, they're trying to pass some legislation to decriminalize welfare fraud that's under $25,000.
Why would you do that?
Why would you want to go out of your way when you have all these problems in California and the thing you decide you're going to work on is to make crime a little bit easier for the criminals?
That's what you choose to work on?
And apparently the bill would also protect fraudsters trying to scam under $950.
And again, I say, there was nothing positive to work on.
The only thing you had to work on, like your top priority, was to make it a little bit easier to be a criminal in California.
How is this even happening?
It doesn't even seem real.
It seems completely made up.
That anything could be this incompetent.
You know, in California, we'll be the only state that doesn't have gas for cars because the refineries, we're not going to have insurance for homes, we're not going to have gas for cars, and we're going to make crime a lot easier to do.
How is this even possibly happening?
Well, it's Democrats, but...
Is this what happens when too many Democrats get in power in the state?
Do all the states just crumble under that level of stupidity?
I don't know.
I saw Fox News and Jesse Waters was reporting that some new boxes from the Biden era have been found.
And these are...
You remember Biden had a bunch of confidential boxes in his garage?
And then there were some confidential boxes in the Penn Center, the Penn-Biden Center, which Biden was part of.
But it turns out that even before those places were looked into, there were some other boxes that we now know got moved to Biden's lawyer's office in Boston.
And since then, they've been put under better security.
But are you curious at all?
Why there would be nine boxes that were pulled out from the many boxes that were discovered.
And, you know, apparently there was nothing too damning in the boxes that were discovered.
Don't you think the boxes that got moved to Biden's lawyer's office and were not disclosed until now, don't you think you'd like to know what's in those boxes?
Well, I would.
Sounds pretty bad.
But again, the Bidens will not be held responsible for anything.
All right, here's my favorite hoax.
My favorite hoax is the Biden brain hoax.
The idea that the media had no idea that Biden was declining.
And the Democrats who were clearly closer to Biden also had no idea.
They didn't even notice.
And they're actually trying to sell that to the public.
Despite the fact that we all can see it without any expertise whatsoever.
But the newest one is Jim Clyburn.
And he says, quote, I was not around Joe Biden enough to tell you anything about his decline.
And he didn't think that any of us could evaluate him because we're not physicians.
Are you telling me that Jim Clyburn didn't talk to any Democrats who were aware that Biden was declining?
They didn't have any private conversations in which somebody said, you know, Jim, just between us, Biden is, you know, he's lost his fastball.
He was in a meeting and he was just mumbling and he fell asleep.
Nobody?
Not a single person.
So Jim Clyburn is like, The most connected Democrat you could possibly be, you know, with the top level of Democrats.
And nobody mentioned it to him.
And he also never noticed it on TV when he watched him the way we did.
And then the media is acting like the problem was that the Democrats weren't telling the media.
This is the most outrageously hilarious hoax.
The Biden brain hoax.
Un-frickin'-believable.
And the question I always ask in these situations is, how are the historians going to write this story?
Are historians going to say, despite the fact that the public could tell that Biden was mentally degraded, he was allowed to finish his term?
Or are they going to say, it was a closely held secret that nobody could have possibly known?
And then when we found out, that's when he was removed from running a second time.
But, wow, it makes you doubt all history, doesn't it?
Because history is going to record...
If you have an AI and you're training your AI on the news, and you just have your AI look at all the news reports that are happening right now, the AI would conclude...
That the media couldn't tell, and the insiders didn't know.
And that's what history will look like.
Unbelievable.
Here's another unbelievable one.
Apparently, there was an aircraft carrier, one of our aircraft carriers, in the Red Sea, that was doing some kind of maneuver that was making a hard turn.
If an aircraft carrier tries to make a hard turn, how hard can an aircraft carrier make a turn?
It's not like a sharp turn, right?
But apparently at the same time that the aircraft carrier was making this hard turn, and maybe it was because the Hoodies were attacking or something, we're not sure, but somebody was bringing a Super Hornet fighter.
A jet out of, you know, out of a, I don't know, from one place to another.
And it slipped off.
And it fell off the aircraft carrier into the sea.
Now, I don't think China is too worried about our military prowess at the moment.
How could this story be true?
Do you believe that, number one, do you believe that an aircraft carrier could make a sharp enough turn that a jet wouldn't be able to somehow correct and it would just fly off the edge of the aircraft carrier?
And do you believe that nobody anticipated it and said to him, hey, just hold on your maneuver until we're done with this?
There's something about this story that doesn't even make sense.
But it's not really covering the Navy in glory.
Well, here's another story that's the least surprising.
Apparently in Iran, where things keep blowing up and catching on fire mysteriously, there's another factory that just blew up.
And people are saying that it's an Iran drone factory.
Now, you might know that Iran is a big supplier of drones to Russia because they have a tight connection.
And somehow, that drone factory just blew up.
Now, who do you think did it?
Now, I saw online people say, well, obviously that was Israel.
You know, they blew up their drone factory.
And some say that it was a drone that blew up the drone factory.
But could it have been Ukraine?
Don't you think Ukraine would want to blow up Iran's drone factory so that Russia didn't get more drones?
I've got a feeling you had more than one country who wanted to blow up their drone factory.
If it was blown up by other people, I suppose there's a possibility that...
You know, there were dangerous things in that factory that blew up on its own.
But I do wonder how many drone factories there are in Iran.
And the thing I would look for is, do you think any other drone factories are going to mysteriously blow up in Iran?
Because I think maybe there will be.
There might be another mysterious explosion of a drone factory.
Could happen.
I don't know why they had a drone factory above ground, by the way.
I was kind of just begging for an attack.
Ukraine on Monday, yesterday, called for a permanent ceasefire.
Because, you know, Russia had asked for a three-day ceasefire.
But the three-day ceasefire was just because they have some 80th anniversary of Victory Day in Europe over Nazi Germany.
Three days of ceasefire, it wasn't about a peace deal.
It was just because they wanted to be doing something else for three days.
And then Ukraine, of course, is saying, well, why not make it a permanent ceasefire?
So it seems to me that both Ukraine and Russia are just pretending, and they're not pretending very well that they want peace.
But they're doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't happen.
So it was kind of safe for Ukraine to say, why not a permanent ceasefire?
You know that's not going to happen.
But they can take credit for asking for it.
So then Ukraine can act like they're the ones who are serious about peace.
But obviously they're not.
Because they want Crimea and that's never going to happen.
So they're not really serious about peace.
And then there's a related story, Financial Times, that said that the US and Ukraine are getting really close to signing a minerals deal.
Do you think that's going to happen?
Because we're really close now.
I don't know.
I'd like to think that there's going to be a minerals deal, but I feel like...
Everything that could make peace happen is going to be thwarted or sabotaged.
So my best guess is we'll get really close to a mineral deal with Ukraine and then something will happen that mysteriously blows up that deal.
Feels like it, but we'll see.
I'd like to be wrong about that, so we'll see.
And then there's a story about all the North Korean...
Soldiers were fighting for Russia.
Apparently, I didn't know this, Russia and North Korea have some kind of a military alliance that says that each would join in a fight for the other if they were in a war.
So I don't know if that's why it's happening.
Some people say that the North Koreans are practicing.
So they're basically training their soldiers to Know how to use drones and do modern warfare because they're getting ready to attack South Korea.
I don't know about that.
And then some people are speculating, including me, is Russia having a hard time recruiting?
Because why would they even want North Korean soldiers?
Is it because they're better at fighting?
I don't know.
And why would North Korean soldiers, I guess the ones we heard from, didn't even know they were going to Ukraine.
So it's not so much that they decided to go to Ukraine.
They sort of didn't know they were going and they just ended up there.
My best guess is that Russia would rather use the North Korean soldiers since they're basically just fodder.
It's basically just a meat grinder at this point.
So the fewer Russians that get killed, the better for Russia.
And the more North Koreans that get killed, Russia doesn't care.
And if North Korea doesn't care, my guess is that Russia is paying North Korea.
So that North Korea is just doing it for profit.
You know, more like mercenaries.
So I don't think it's because they have a military agreement.
I don't think it's just to make sure that the people who go there are trained in modern warfare.
Because I don't think they're sending their best troops or anything like that.
And most of them are just going to be ground up.
It's not like they're going to come back with skills.
They're going to come back completely damaged.
So we're left to speculate what that's all about.
But I think it's just for money.
And I guess Putin's guy, Lavrov, has added some demands for a peace deal that make you look very much like they're not interested in a peace deal.
So instead of starting where we think we are, which is Russia wants to keep the stuff that's occupied, but that's all now Lavrov is saying.
Even if it's not occupied, if it's what Russia wanted to keep, they get to keep it.
Now, that would very much be somebody who doesn't want peace.
So, you know, maybe there's some difference between what Putin wants and what Lavrov is saying.
But it really looks like Russia's just playing Trump at this point.
So, I don't think there's much of any chance of a peace deal.
As of today.
I mean, I could change my mind tomorrow.
What do you think?
Do you think Ukraine and Russia have any chance of a peace deal?
Because it seems that Zelensky can't make a deal, because if he did, he would be murdered by his own people.
And Putin doesn't need a deal, because he's winning.
And apparently he can just grind away as long as he wants, and get as much as he wants.
You know, you can make a deal anytime later.
So, I'm going to say that no peace deal.
All right.
Apparently, the U.S. has struck more than, according to the Washington Times, has struck more than 800 Houthi targets in Yemen in the past six weeks.
800 targets.
But, has it worked?
Well, According to this reporting from the Washington Times, they've reduced Houthi missile launches by 69%, and attacks from Houthi one-way drones down by 55%.
But the weirdest part of the story is that it suggests that Iran's support of the Houthis It is not part of our negotiation with Iran for a nuclear deal.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that we're negotiating with Iran for a nuclear deal, but we're not throwing in their support for the Houthis?
Wouldn't that be the most obvious thing you throw into the deal?
It's like, okay, you've got to stop supporting the Houthis, ruining things in the Red Sea.
So that doesn't make sense to me.
That should all be part of the same conversation.
But if we reduce their launches by 69%, can we ever get to the point where the Red Sea is safe enough?
Because wouldn't you have to reduce their attacks by 99% before the insurance companies would say, yeah, that looks safe enough.
We'll insure your ship if you take it that direction.
And if you did, even if you reduced it by 99%, how long would it take them to reconstitute their resources if we stopped bombing them?
I mean, it looks like it's either a permanent war, or I don't understand why they're doing it, because I just don't know how you can get to the end.
Well, the House has passed some legislation called the Take It Down Act.
I guess Ted Cruz was the one who introduced it.
And it makes it illegal to have revenge porn on the Internet.
So if you have revenge porn, the sites are going to have to take it down.
CBS News is reporting on this.
Now, here's the best part of this story.
It turns out it's bipartisan.
So even though Ted Cruz is the one who introduced it, I'm thinking, wait a minute.
It's bipartisan?
And Ted Cruz introduced it?
Huh.
Did the Democrats finally learn not to oppose everything that Republicans are doing?
Because probably the Democrats had a conversation like, all right, Republicans want to get rid of this revenge porn.
We're going to have to say we're really in favor of revenge porn now.
So I feel like Ted Cruz got the Democrats this close.
To a full-throated endorsement of revenge porn.
Just based on past experience.
Not really.
I'm just joking.
Well, according to the Hill, the Trump administration is trying to limit the, quote, forever chemicals that companies discharge into the water.
But there's some concern that maybe other deregulation will work against that.
But I do like the fact that with the Make America Healthy Again, the focus on all the permanent pollution that's in our food and in our medicines and in our water and in our air are being looked at pretty critically.
So that seems like good news.
According to Newsmax, the Trump administration is going to dismiss.
All the authors of National Climate Assessment.
Apparently there are, and this is weird, there are 400 contributors, or were, they're all fired now, to the sixth National Climate Assessment.
So Congress mandates that there's a climate assessment every year, I guess.
But the Trump administration has dismissed all the contributors.
So, I guess the Trump administration didn't need to prove anything about climate change.
All they did is just say, all right, we don't need you.
You're done.
And probably that report was useless because it's too political.
Who would trust 400 contributors to the National Climate Assessment?
Do you think that there's even one of those contributors?
Who might have contributed something and said, you know what?
I think these climate models are BS.
No.
Because in order to keep their jobs and to continue working in their field, they would all have to agree.
So if you know in advance that all the authors have to agree to one position, why do you need them?
Because you know exactly what they're going to say.
Oh, we're all going to be dead in 12 years.
The oceans will be boiling.
You don't really need to pay them if you know that for political and career reasons, there's only one thing they can say.
You could just say, we will stipulate that all of you people who want to protect your careers are going to say that climate change is terrible and it's already too late, but you really should get rid of all your, I don't know, all your gas vehicles or something.
So, yeah, you don't really need to pay people to tell you what you know they're going to say.
Meanwhile, China apparently has a microwave gun that fires 10,000 shots nonstop at missiles and drones to knock them out of the air, according to the interesting engineering.
And I guess it was hard to do technically, but...
And it's not that big.
So I think you could put it on a truck or something.
It's about that size.
And I'm thinking that the United States does not have such a weapon.
Because if we did, wouldn't we just park a few of them off of Yemen and just knock down every drone and every missile that came out of Yemen?
Or at least anything that was headed toward the Red Sea?
So that kind of suggests we don't have that weapon, right?
Or somebody said that we do have something like it and it's deployed in the Philippines, to which I say, but wouldn't you also have it outside of Yemen?
Because if you could knock down the missiles, you know, as soon as they're launched, it seems like that'd be a pretty good model.
Unless you need like a hundred of them, you know, in order to cover the coast, which might be the case.
But we need that for Yemen.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's your news for the day.
Thanks for joining.
I'll see you on YouTube and X and Rumble same time tomorrow.
And I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers, assuming my buttons work.